How worried should we as Canadians be about climate change?

[vid]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Somebody who makes 40k isn’t going to see much tax cut, somebody making 100k is going to see a lot of tax cut (and the 40k person would probably pay more carbon tax than the person making 100k).

His plan wasn't cutting taxes across the board, his platform only laid out tax cuts of up to 28% for the first two tax brackets, up to $86,000, which is still pretty middle class. (Comfortable, but middle class; more than my boss makes and he owns a corporation!)

I was going to vote for him but he went a did a questionable thing 14 years ago. The further we get from that incident the more I feel like it really was a political hit job. Special interest groups didn't like what he was going to do, and they forced him out of the party and ordered those running to replace him to disavow the carbon tax. And now we've got Doug Ford.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by vid

His plan wasn't cutting taxes across the board, his platform only laid out tax cuts of up to 28% for the first two tax brackets, up to $86,000, which is still pretty middle class. (Comfortable, but middle class; more than my boss makes and he owns a corporation!)

I don’t know the exact details of the Brown plan so maybe I am mistaken, but a 28% cut on the first two brackets would be worth about $500 to a person making 40k (assuming 5k in deductions) and about $1700 to someone making 100k. Considering the 40k earner probably pays about the same carbon tax (maybe more) this is a pretty significant transfer of wealth from the lower middle class to the upper middle class.

[vid]

Well then it's a good thing it didn't happen!

[blacktrojan3921]

Originally Posted by lio45

Why is that "amazing"?

A SSP discussion about realistic solutions to the housing affordability crisis can be had, or we can have a discussion thread that starts with the suggestion we could kill all the rich and take their housing, but those two aren't going to be anywhere near the same thing.

I recommend you watch Merchants of Doubt; it really shows how companies have become successful in turning this into another political issue between the right and left.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don’t know the exact details of the Brown plan so maybe I am mistaken, but a 28% cut on the first two brackets would be worth about $500 to a person making 40k (assuming 5k in deductions) and about $1700 to someone making 100k. Considering the 40k earner probably pays about the same carbon tax (maybe more) this is a pretty significant transfer of wealth from the lower middle class to the upper middle class.

I went back over the People's Guarantee platform and the cuts in the first two brackets only made up about 80% of the carbon tax offset. The rest was in a doubling of the Ontario Trillium Benefit payments to low income people and a means-tested rebate for childcare costs that was very lucrative to lower middle class parents. So overall the plan was fairly progressive, IMO. That said, I do think it would have been better to use that 80% to cut the first bracket only instead of the first two and/or use it to increase the basic personal amount.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by whatnext

A typically Albertan response: do nothing.

If governments can't do anything, who can? Are you suggesting businesses will?

You still have yet to contribute anything other than mud slinging to the conversation...

[vid]

Originally Posted by CityTech

I went back over the People's Guarantee platform and the cuts in the first two brackets only made up about 80% of the carbon tax offset. The rest was in a doubling of the Ontario Trillium Benefit payments to low income people and a means-tested rebate for childcare costs that was very lucrative to lower middle class parents. So overall the plan was fairly progressive, IMO. That said, I do think it would have been better to use that 80% to cut the first bracket only instead of the first two and/or use it to increase the basic personal amount.

It was a Conservative party's platform, mind you. The fact that there was any form of tax cut and benefits plan for low income people in it was fucking amazing. Doug Ford's support for low income people so far includes cancelling a minimum wage hike, postponing the minimum income earners provincial income tax elimination (meaning that they won't even receive the extra $800/year they were promised in June), and cancelling the minimum income pilot project without knowing its results.

The People's Guarantee is starting to look like socialism compared to the jackass who replaced Patrick Brown.

[Hackslack]

Honest question here. Why are metropolitans along the coast, continuing to expand in population, especially with the outright hysteria of climate change and increased sea levels the will no doubt wreak havoc on these metros as the temperature of the globe continues to rise? Why are skyscrapers continuing to rise in downtown Vancouver?

Why have we not already seen metros along the eastern sea board and Florida continuesly warning its people to flee the area, as most certainly more and more high powered hurricanes are set to devastate and destruct it’s areas? I mean, this is the single most devastating thing to threaten the world population, yet here wee are continuing to explode in population in cities along the coast, including some of the most highly educated metros.

Maybe that is actually happening behind the scenes and just not getting reported.

Does anyone know if there are wind farms of some sort on the east coast or in Florida to harness some of the immense energy emitted by these devastating storms?

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Honest question here. Why are metropolitans along the coast, continuing to expand in population, especially with the outright hysteria of climate change and increased sea levels the will no doubt wreak havoc on these metros as the temperature of the globe continues to rise? Why are skyscrapers continuing to rise in downtown Vancouver?

Greed? Or a devout belief that engineering can overcome wave action and erosion?

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Why have we not already seen metros along the eastern sea board and Florida continuesly warning its people to flee the area, as most certainly more and more high powered hurricanes are set to devastate and destruct it’s areas? I mean, this is the single most devastating thing to threaten the world population, yet here wee are continuing to explode in population in cities along the coast, including some of the most highly educated metros.

I would never invest in property in the coastal lowlands of SE and E USA. Great places to visit but live there? No bloody way

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Does anyone know if there are wind farms of some sort on the east coast or in Florida to harness some of the immense energy emitted by these devastating storms?

I have no idea what speed of wind a windmill can safely operate at and have they solved the storage of energy issue?

[Hackslack]

Seems like a complete failure by government to be communicating the hysteria of global warming, the devastating impact to peoplekind around the globe, knowing full well we will not meet the targets which have been set by leading global scientists on the topic, and knowing the devastation that will be caused by it as stated by said scientists, which 97% of them agree upon, yet we still have governments promoting people to live along the coasts, invest in those communities, spend tax dollars to entice people to move and invest.

To me it is completely hypocritical of our government to communicate the destruction that will be caused by global warming, yet not telling people to move away from the shorelines, let alone continuing to spend money there.

[O-tacular]

A comprehensive take on where we stand as a nation on Climate Change policy and the dangers that lie ahead for the carbon tax. I agree that the far left is almost as culpable as the far right in killing current legislation. Attacking incremental improvements that have been made because they don’t go far enough will result in no steps being taken to tackle the problem when the next conservative government gets elected.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...-hard-to-love/

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Seems like a complete failure by government to be communicating the hysteria of global warming, the devastating impact to peoplekind around the globe, knowing full well we will not meet the targets which have been set by leading global scientists on the topic, and knowing the devastation that will be caused by it as stated by said scientists, which 97% of them agree upon, yet we still have governments promoting people to live along the coasts, invest in those communities, spend tax dollars to entice people to move and invest.

To me it is completely hypocritical of our government to communicate the destruction that will be caused by global warming, yet not telling people to move away from the shorelines, let alone continuing to spend money there.

Well what sort of timelines are we talking about here? If the most recent skyscraper approved in Vancouver might have water lapping at its foundations in 500 years, is there any reason to not approve it? It might be replaced a few times before then. Maybe it's replacement circa 2418 should be made off-limits or maybe the design will just change to a futuristic Venice style development, but I'm not sure what the point is of not allowing it now.

I guess my question is are there any developments being approved now that will likely have water pouring into its basement in the next 100 years?

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Does anyone know if there are wind farms of some sort on the east coast or in Florida to harness some of the immense energy emitted by these devastating storms?

Windmills generate a fairly consistent current regardless of the wind speed (can't recall what the mechanism is called though), and are much more susceptible to damage in high wind (things like gears wearing out faster due to higher RPM on windy days), so they don't operate in very high wind. I'd look into it more, but I should really be working right now lol.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Seems like a complete failure by government to be communicating the hysteria of global warming, the devastating impact to peoplekind around the globe, knowing full well we will not meet the targets which have been set by leading global scientists on the topic, and knowing the devastation that will be caused by it as stated by said scientists, which 97% of them agree upon, yet we still have governments promoting people to live along the coasts, invest in those communities, spend tax dollars to entice people to move and invest.

To me it is completely hypocritical of our government to communicate the destruction that will be caused by global warming, yet not telling people to move away from the shorelines, let alone continuing to spend money there.

The tone of your post confuses me. On the one hand you seem to be mocking the 'hysteria' of Climate Change, while on the other you point out the threat to coastal cities and the unprecedented damage that the world is set to endure. If you acknowledge it is real then you should also support doing everything we can to start reducing emissions. Abandoning coastal cities (though parts of Florida seem done for) doesn't address the problem. We can tackle Climate Change but it starts with emissions reductions.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Does anyone know if there are wind farms of some sort on the east coast or in Florida to harness some of the immense energy emitted by these devastating storms?

During heavy winds, wind turbines just disable themselves and act as fancy weather vanes. They can survive winds from 150 to 250 km/h, and some have been designed to withstand 300km/h, so they're quite durable, but when wind goes faster than 90km/h, they usually disconnect from the generator and just spin around uselessly. They use something similar to a transmission to maintain a constant current in the generator regardless of wind speed (like how your transmission changes gears to maintain a constant RPM), but at high wind speeds it's not efficient enough to convert the wind energy into usable power without other components, so it isn't done. It also wears them out, so they'd need more maintenance and cost more in the long term. It would be like driving your engine constantly at 5000+ RPM. It can be done, and it might get you somewhere faster, but it's not efficient and it certainly isn't good for the longevity of the engine.

Wind turbines also generally don't operate much below about -20°C, as the components become less effective and ice build up can put a lot of stress on the structure. During cold snaps, a wind farm will actually consume energy (or at least consume some of its own energy, if it's operating) to keep everything warm enough to prevent damage due to cold and ice.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Something that I've been advocating for some time. We have all sorts of capability to allow nature to do much of the heavy lifting, but we keep insisting we can continue to live and work in risky locations.

‘Natural infrastructure’ — retain what you have; restore what’s lost

A new report says natural infrastructure can be cheaper than built infrastructure for controlling floods

Saving and carefully managing of wetlands, forests and other working natural landscapes can save Canadians millions in yearly flood damage costs, says a new report supported in part by the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

This ‘natural infrastructure’ is also a viable and cost-effective alternative to traditional — and often much more expensive — built flood protection, such as dams and other water control structures, the report says.

Rest of the story can be accessed here.
https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/ne...e=homepage&i=1

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Something that I've been advocating for some time. We have all sorts of capability to allow nature to do much of the heavy lifting, but we keep insisting we can continue to live and work in risky locations.

‘Natural infrastructure’ — retain what you have; restore what’s lost

A new report says natural infrastructure can be cheaper than built infrastructure for controlling floods

Saving and carefully managing of wetlands, forests and other working natural landscapes can save Canadians millions in yearly flood damage costs, says a new report supported in part by the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

This ‘natural infrastructure’ is also a viable and cost-effective alternative to traditional — and often much more expensive — built flood protection, such as dams and other water control structures, the report says.

Rest of the story can be accessed here.
https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/ne...e=homepage&i=1

Good post, Nature has dealt with this stuff for a lot longer than we have been around, and sometimes the natural way is the most effective.